Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Philosophy and religion

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Philosophy and religion

Managing deliberation: the quandary of democratic dialogue

Article Abstract:

Collectivist approaches to the First Amendment emphasize collective processes of public deliberation, rather than individual rights. A collectivist theory of free speech should not replace traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, but should be used only when needed to preserve self-governance. The collectivist free speech theory of Owen Fiss and Alexander Meiklejohn falls outside tradition in denying the distinction between public and private as well as the autonomy of citizen response to public discourse. J. Skelly Wright's collectivist argument is internal to First Amendment tradition, and therefore more attractive, in pointing out practices that foster alienation.

Author: Post, Robert
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Publication Name: Ethics
Subject: Philosophy and religion
ISSN: 0014-1704
Year: 1993
Democracy

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The phenomenology of speech and harm

Article Abstract:

A free speech principle cannot be based on the assumption that speech is less harmful than other categories of conduct. Rejection of this 'lesser harm' hypothesis does not, however, imply that speech acts are necessarily harmful. Without the lesser harm hypothesis, there is need to find a more positive argument for treating free speech separately. Nevertheless, in the absence of such a free speech principle, general principles of liberty will be sufficient to protect most speech acts from government control.

Author: Schauer, Frederick
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Publication Name: Ethics
Subject: Philosophy and religion
ISSN: 0014-1704
Year: 1993

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Moral deliberation, nonmoral ends, and the virtuous agent

Article Abstract:

An overriding end or goal is the motive upon which a persons are determined to act and the driving force that guides their deliberations. Persons may use independent preference in making a choice regarding conflicting views but they must also consider its moral implications. It is contended that agents, whose overriding reasons for action are always explicitly moral, do not attain their goals.

Author: Isaacs, Tracy, Jeske, Diane
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Publication Name: Ethics
Subject: Philosophy and religion
ISSN: 0014-1704
Year: 1997
Analysis, Ethics, Reasoning

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Freedom of speech, Beliefs, opinions and attitudes
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Contractualism and aggregation. Compatibilism and contractualism: The possibility of moral responsibility. The moral legislature: contractualism without an Archimedean point
  • Abstracts: An empirical investigation of factors affecting ethical optimism of nurses. Overcoming the theory/practice opposition in business ethics
  • Abstracts: A longitudinal examination of American business ethics: Clark's scales revisited
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.